Epic Stupid: Ted Cruz - "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet"

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Wow! really, dude? You actually think gov regulation of the net will benefit you or the little guy? You really think Google & Comcast will be playing by the same rules as ATS?

Obamacare Architect - Lack of Transparency Was Key to Fooling Stupid Americans

If you think "Net Neutrality" will be any different, you're deluding yourself.

Go ahead and continue to be just another "Stupid American voter" and keep drinking the Obama Kool-aid.

"Deny Ignorance?" You've thrown that by the wayside. You've taken your own website's motto and crapped all over it.

No wonder I hardly visit this site any longer.

"net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."

I am really confused what the Republicans stand for now. To me this falls right in line with their philosophy. So the Republicans want slow-fast, oppressed info, highest bidder access lanes?

I wonder how many people lost interest in Ted Cruz after he said this.

I mean, Net Neutrality is a huge issue, and if the numbers are true, 4 million people have contacted the government voicing support for Net Neutrality, and it only stands to reason that some of them voted for Ted Cruz.

originally posted by: MOMof3
I am really confused what the Republicans stand for now. To me this falls right in line with their philosophy. So the Republicans want slow-fast, oppressed info, highest bidder access lanes?

I think they want whatever will help the wealthy. I think they truly think that a wealthy upper crust means a healthy economy and nation. "Trickle-down" works, they believe. They want to support the idea that a person can work hard and become a millionaire... which is true, given the opportunity. Unfortunately, the very system they support removes opportunity for the "little guy" as he's too busy trying to feed his family on minimum wage.

The idea that there's even a debate over net neutrality is ridiculous. Any average Joe who uses the internet should support the idea that the Internet belongs to us and is a means of communication for the world, not to be bought, sold, manipulated and denied for those who cannot afford it.

a reply to: Realtruth

1. This is not the place for the fluoride conspiracy debate. One question, do you like having your teeth?

2. And I say that your vague and generic statement about "regulation" is nothing more than a platitude. Feel free to demonstrate diffrently in specific examples and we can talk.

3. The internet is already regulated. Net Neutrality is attempting to preserve the internet as it is.

4. You do ingest pharmaceuticals, however. Without regulation, you might be ingesting powdered pig testicles or water with radium in it instead of actual medicine. The profit model only has one demand: make the most money with the least expense.

a reply to: AgentShillington

I would wager very few of the "true believers."

That type of mental processing is quite averse to actual facts and reasoning.

Besides that, we've seen in this very thread, that "if'n Ted Cruz is against Obama, then I'm fer 'im, whatever he says."

May Random Chance preserve us.

a reply to: mal1970

Currently internet is neutral. Net Neutrality is already established. That is not the question.

Where the problem lies, some politicians want to lose net neutrality, change the way the internet works currently.

At the moment, you are able to use ATS website at the same speed as you can use any other website, whether netflix, facebook, google or any other site, whether they are big corporations or mom&dad home businesses.

If what Ted Cruz wants, happened (losing Internet Neutrality), this would pretty much be the end of internet, at least the way it is right now. This would mean that internet providers would be able to choose which sites load faster and which do not, based the amount they are willing to pay. If ATS owners are not able to pay the same amount as Facebook owners, ATS will take significantly longer to load than Facebook.

If net neutrality was de-established, this would be the end of internet, as it is now, where everybody has a chance to make their website, make their business. No one would want to use a website, where every page takes 5 seconds+ to load, but that is what it would mean for any small business, who is not able to pay as much as the big corporations in their business sector can. Internet start-ups, small e-shops all that would be history, while the current corporations would become nearly immortal at their position due to having the option to pay much more for their websites being much faster than the other sites.

It seems as if you were drinking Kool-Aid. Please take your incredibly biased blindfolds off and take a look at the facts. Currently the net neutrality is established. Do you want the internet to stay the same, where you can use any site at the same speed, or you want it to change in favour of corporations who are able to pay more than small businesses, so that their sites would faster.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The internet is already regulated. Net Neutrality is attempting to preserve the internet as it is.

hahaha nothing like preserving regulations with more regulations!!!! Good one! It's the Democratic Way!

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No one wants new regulations...

What they want is losing the ones, that currently exist, the other half wants to keep it the way it is, so that internet providers would not be able to choose which sites are faster and which are slower. Currently every website takes the same time to load, not dependent on the amount the website owners are willing to pay. What Ted Cruz, wants is changing it, so the ones who are able to pay more, would get faster loading times on their websites.

a reply to: bubbabuddha

Just to be clear. Absolutely everything you quoted (without citation) has zero applicability to the FCC designating the Internet as a UTILITY. One does not censor water or electricity.

The FCC does censor broadcast television to a small degree (Not Cable..which is also under the same act). Broadcast television has a higher standard to protect children because it is public airwaves, non-subscriber.

You are inaccurately conflating them all together...Cable, Public Airwaves and Utilities when the law, the constitution and the SCOTUS have spent a century making massive, crystal clear distinctions.

There is NO MECHANISM WHAT-SO-EVER for the FCC to censor the internet as a utility. Designating it as a utility like water and electricity only allows them to enforce business model/accounting logistics of IP providers.

a reply to: Cabin

Currently internet is neutral. Net Neutrality is already established. That is not the question.

there it is again. The Internet is already neutral so let's make it more neutral with more regulations. I am not averse to having certain regulations by the way. I really don't want to see content filtering but we already have that now don't we? Some net neutrality! Yahoo was busy making the Chinese networks neutral too!!!! So you think that net neutrality will give you more access then you have now? Do you think

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey...your talking reason and common sense...there's no place for that here!

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think you are purposely not getting it.

That's too bad.

a reply to: Cabin

No one wants new regulations...

And that's why you want the government to ask the FCC to pile on regulations...ok then.

originally posted by: MOMof3
"net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."

I am really confused what the Republicans stand for now. To me this falls right in line with their philosophy. So the Republicans want slow-fast, oppressed info, highest bidder access lanes?

Yes the Republicans like Cruz want to get rid of net neutrality because there is more profit to be had if it was gone.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

No, no one wants to make it more neutral... No more regulations, let it stay the same.

Ted Cruz wants to lose the current rules, so that the highest bidder from the website owners would get the best internet speeds, while the smaller websites who are not able to pay as much, would be much slower and take much more time to load.

The question does not lie in whether to make new regulations, but whether to keep the net neutrality as it is or to lose it.

I personally want it to stay the same, Ted Cruz wants it to change (in favour of corporations, who can pay more)


PLEASE, LEARN THE FACTS, BEFORE MAKING YOUR OPINION ON SOMETHING YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT. ATS IS ABOUT DENYING IGNORANCE, NOT ENCOURING IT.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Cabin

No one wants new regulations...

And that's why you want the government to ask the FCC to pile on regulations...ok then.

No one is piling on any new regulations just to reenforce the ones that already exist. It would really help if you knew what you were talking about.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Cabin

No one wants new regulations...

And that's why you want the government to ask the FCC to pile on regulations...ok then.

No one is piling on any new regulations just to reenforce the ones that already exist.

.......yet.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think you are purposely not getting it.

That's too bad.

I was looking into net neutrality years ago, and I was never completely convinced one way or the other, but now I know that Soros is pushing it....sorry, I will never trust anything that man is about.
Skeptic's technical explanation was the best argument I've seen here. Other than that I've been lectured on Arpanet, told that I don't know what I'm talking about so I sourced my statement with facts about ICANN and ITU, and told any number of other odd and assorted things by politically biased people here. So forgive me, no one here has convinced me.

a reply to: mal1970

For some reason when I see people posting on the internet defending Ted Cruz and deriding Net neutrality, I strangely think of Hannibal Lector and the horrific scene in the movie where he drugged one of his victims with a hallucinogenic and convinced him to eat his own face.

This is not a partisan issue and it is a topic that has a tonnage of evidence to research. You can become an exhaustive expert on it without ever listening to a single word Ted Cruz or Pres. Obama says.